Conservative or Liberal, Deist or Pagan, Jersey transplant or Lehigh Valley native, we're all in this mess together. Let's talk. Let us do no harm. Today's one-liner: "The shortest way to the distinguishing excellence of any writer is through his hostile critics." Richard LeGallienne

About Me

Monday, June 15, 2015

About that $350,000 Bulldog "Bathroom"

Tonight, Bethlehem Township Commissioners will consider a resolution seeking a $250,000 grant towards a $350,000 bathroom at the Northside Complex, also called the North 40. It's where the Bulldogs play football, softball, soccer and lacrosse. It's intended to replace port-a-johns currently in place, and was approved by the Rec Board at their June 8 meeting by a 3-2 vote, with one abstention. The plan has been attacked repeatedly by Commissioner Michael Hudak as an attempt to play favorites with the Bulldogs, who actually have a contract with the Township agreeing to provide recreational activities for residents. On talk radio, Commissioner Pat Breslin claimed he could raise $100,000 for bathrooms without involving the government.

Raise Private Funds

"Here's, the crazy part," commented shock jock Bobby Gunther Walsh, who should be an expert on that subject. "You guys could do it for $100,000, maybe get companies to donate their labor, some plumbers to donate their labor, electricians to donate their labor, maybe even get less thatn $100,000 to put up bathroom facilities. No, no, that's put in the budget because we can then comp one of our cronies and charge $350,000."

"The union will get involved," worried Pat Breslin.

"They're going to say you're stealing labor from them," echoed Walsh.

Breslin, who voted against the budget for this year, has never once mentioned, during any meeting, the possibility of using private funds to build bathroom facilities. He has never mentioned that possibility to other Commissioners outside of the meetings either. His statement is total bullshit. But he went onto talk radio to complain that his never-mentioned plan to raise private funds was ignored.

Since Breslin claimed he could raise the funds privately, he should be called on tonight to spearhead such an effort for whatever funds are needed outside of the grant. That's approximately $100,000, and he's already said he could do it. So let him. I hope he is named to lead such an effort tonight.

He can go on Bobby Gunther Walsh's show and have a telethon.

Bathroom Doubles as a Storage Facility

What Breslin, Walsh, Hudak and other critics of this bathroom fail to mention is that this bathroom will also double as a storage facility. It's so much easier for them to make their points without letting facts get in the way.

The Bethlehem Bulldogs currently pay almost $700 a month (app.$8,000/year) for storage of equipment and supplies during the off season. This facility will also provide permanent storage for shoulder pads and other equipment, much like the Steelers' facility in Bethlehem.Because the Bulldogs no longer will have to pay rental, they have agreed to an $8,000 cut in their annual allotment from the Township. That annual savings will probably pay for most if not all of the cost of the bathroom over its anticipated lifespan.

Why Does the Bathroom/Storage facility Cost $350,000?

The Township could rent trailers for eight months along with handicapped port-a-johns based on the 432 people visiting the park at any one time. Over 25 years, that would cost $400,000. The aromas and smell would be free.

Based on the parking lot size (and that lot is over capacity during football season), the 2009 International Building Code and Township Plumbing Code require a facility that includes the following: six women's toilets; two men's toilets and one urinal; two lavatories (sinks) in each restroom; Handicapped accessible facilities for each gender; two drinking fountains (one each for wheelchair and standing persons); A service closet with water heater, mop sink, and cleaning supply storage; and a separate, "family assisted use" restroom. This has nothing to do with unions or cronies, and everything to do with public safety and hygiene.

Name Port-a-Johns

If Commissioners vote this grant down, they'll have to continue using port-a-johns. If that is the case, I have an idea for raising revenue. The could bid out the naming rights to each shutter. There could be a Michael D Hudak shitter, a Pat Breslin job johnny and so forth.

The money raised would probably prevent a tax hike for the next ten years.

Let me state that I'm 100% for building whatever facilities are needed to service youth activities in the community.

I'm still not seeing how a cinder block building with simple plumbing costs $350K. I'm hoping the majority of that is to dig sewer lines or something. It doesn't add up. You can buy a McMansion for $350K (which means it was built for a lot less).

I'd suggest you read the agenda with Melissa Shafer's report. I linked to it.

According to her report, "A basic model with the appropriate number of fixtures will cost approximately $250,000. However, with the additional costs of site work, a new water line, and sustainable features that will limit vandalism, that cost may be closer to $350,000."

She goes on to answer your question, as I attempted to do, by pointing out that code requires plumbing fixtures for six women's toilets, two men's toilets, two sinks in each restroom, handicapped accessible facilities, a service closet and a separate family restroom. In short, there is nothing "simple" about the plumbing.

I looked on the Internet, and see that adding one bathroom to a home can cost $50,000. Here you are talking about nine, and this is without the line work or the storage facility. So though it sounds very ridiculous, the costs appears to be the norm.

If there were $32,000 toilet seat covers, you'd be right on the money.

I think the problem, beyond the fact that certain individuals want to disparage for the sake of disparaging, is that your average person has no concept of what things costs in today's day and age with modern codes and code enforcement. It seems simple enough to erect a cinder building and throw a couple of toilets in it. But it is just not that simple.

@9:01,One of the reasons for the cost is that this project must pay prevailing wages to its contractors. Public money is being spent, and PA law requires that prevailing wages be paid. That means union wages. If this outdated law was repealed, less public money could be spent, and the quality of the workmanship wouldn't be affected.

9:35, I know that a COMPLETE 3000 square foot house with 2-3 bathrooms, kitchen, HVAC, carpeting, flooring, tile, doors, windows, drywall, electrical, garage doors, lighting, plumbing, fixtures, etc RETAILS at $350,000. I also know what $350K will buy if adding an addition to a home. Seems out of whack.

You are right, but this isn't a house, this is a public building that MUST be handicapped accessible and water and sewer lines need to be brought in, as opposed to tying in off the street or having on-lot water and sewer. Add prevailing wages in and you got yourself a $350k project.

But I agree, if you or I were to get our own contractors and get donations from different professionals to put up a bathroom facility at a park, we could do it for less. The problem is the Township will not let that happen because of the union employees.

$350,000 is a bargain for what they are proposing. That will add maybe $.50 to your tax bill? Those bathrooms will be used by the community at large, not just the families of the Bulldogs. Friends, relatives, etc. will all benefit. Small price to pay for a large benefit.

$350,000 is outrageous - unless it's something being built for a municipal entity. The same job being bid for a private citizen would be half the price. Knowing the customer is a municipality, the price gets jacked, a lot. Anyone who participates in municipal bidding knows this. When the gravy train rolls by, you jump on and get fed. It pays for all the shitty deals a company has had to endure. Profit is not a dirty word in the business world. And municipal business is very profitable because those who run municipalities are rather stupid about such things. Our current county controller has no accounting or finance background. Who cares? Remember the outrageous cost overruns on the NorCo council chambers? One council member called them "nice," and the named a frickin park after him! Nothing to see here. Just another day of spendthrift ridiculousness and its staunch defenders. Spend on! It's only taxpayers' money. It grows on trees, right?

Municipal bidding is a sewer. It's a feeding trough for overcharging and overbidding. Ridiculously large homes can be purchased for less than $350K. I don't like Walsh and don't know any of the players on either side of the politically charged debate. And there's the rub. Municipal projects are often so politically charged that price is the last thing looked at. Bust out the cardboard checks and damn common sense. Seriously, $350K for restrooms? Really? Who is the contractor? He should be named to protect the public from being hosed like Bethlehem Twp.

That's not the point. The point is that Breslin misrepresented that he had donors lined up when the reality is he did nothing. Of course it would be cheaper if a plumber or electrician volunteered his time.

yeah, just got to WalMart and buy the stuff, have Joe the builder do it for 100.000, don't worry about stupid plans and codes and regulations,all that government bullcrap, so what if it lasts two years? fox news tells me to hate unions, and i do. as long as i can continue to complain about taxes, and be right, because fox news, that's all i care about.

So how are the Two and PennDOT working together to fix the culvert with the caved in sidewalk? Or does no one still want " ownership" and still pointing at each other? Dangerous enough as it is, let alone if under water. Perception is that both are willing to take the risk that a tragedy won't happen and they won't be sued, and that is cheaper than fixing a known hazard.

So how are the Two and PennDOT working together to fix the culvert with the caved in sidewalk? Or does no one still want " ownership" and still pointing at each other? Dangerous enough as it is, let alone if under water. Perception is that both are willing to take the risk that a tragedy won't happen and they won't be sued, and that is cheaper than fixing a known hazard.

Lighthouse, at this juncture, the twp is demanding that PennDot take responsibility. They are using state legislators to encourage PennDOT to do something. If PennDot refuses, the next step might be a lawsuit.

State legislators have very little influence with PennDOT, though I wish them luck. As I have written before there is the immediate issue, and the larger issue of the culverts from Butztown to Santee on both sides of Easton, and down Willow Park (wall from the property owner will eventually cave in and impede flow on the open culvert once past the grates on Willow Park). All stakeholders need to be in, most especially the government entities of PennDOT and the Twp. The roads themselves are PennDOT, but beyond is the dispute. The immediate problem needs fixed. But the whole area needs a formal engineering assessment and plan of action. Sidewalks over the culverts between Pub and Butztown showing deterioration. In the end, there is a known problem, with foreseeable hazards (not just with water), and no action.

Lighthouse, the culvert (covered by steel grating and sidewalk) extending between Willow Park Road and Santee Road, on the collapsed side, is actually owned by the abutting property owners. It is not owned by PennDOT or the Township. In the early '70s, PenDOT pule that all in place. It did so without approval from BT engineer's at that time , Mr. Fraivillig. His contention was that the proposed culverts on both sides of the road were inadequate to carry storm waters. He actually suggested a huge pipe that would go under the highway. He proposed extending that pipe along Santee Road to Willow Park Road for drainage into Nancy Run Creek, He also suggested closing off the Willow Park Road and Easton Avenue intersection and making Santee Road the place where traffic would turn.

In the Leform case, the PennDOT district engineer testified to the work they had done at that side.

So I believe the argument could be forcefully made that PennDOT is responsible and has to fix the culvert.

I realize PennDOT is pretty much a law unto itself, but I think it is in a bad egal position here.